- 37 -
attributable solely to Christopher. See Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147 (2003). Additionally, the
following factors weighing against relief are present:10 (1) The
items giving rise to the deficiencies also are attributable to
petitioner, (2) petitioner had “reason to know”, and (3)
petitioner will not suffer economic hardship. Id.
Petitioner also argues that respondent made blanket “pro
forma” denials of Hoyt investor section 6015 claims. We
disagree.
Respondent’s internal memoranda contemplate that some Hoyt
investors would qualify for section 6015 relief. The memoranda
do not reflect a decision to issue blanket denials to all Hoyt
investor section 6015 claims.
Ms. Sneed testified that she processed claims granting
section 6015 relief in other Hoyt investor cases she has
reviewed. Furthermore, Ms. Sneed credibly testified that she
conducted a full, impartial, and fair evaluation of petitioner’s
section 6015 claim.
The format of the determination letter denying section 6015
relief for Hoyt investors was unique to the Hoyt cases. This
format was provided to Ms. Sneed. Respondent did use uniform
10 The absence of factors weighing against equitable relief
does not weigh in favor of granting relief--this is merely
neutral. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 149
(2003) (absence of factor weighing in favor of equitable relief
does not weigh against granting equitable relief--it is neutral).
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011